A Texas IP attorney who spotted Apple laying claim to expired patents is planning to see the company in court, or get a few dollars anyway.
It's not just Apple at fault – the suit names Sprint, Samsung and Cellco too - but the Apple patents are the most obvious, with four of those referenced in the iPod documentation expiring …

COMMENTS

Are they (John McEnroe) Serious?

Look, all it takes is a simple search plugin to pull up a patent and see its issue date, and from there extrapolate the expiration date. Lots of things also say "Pat. Pending" which can mean anything from "It was issued yesterday" to "I thought it was a good idea, but the wheel is already invented".

This is down right silly. Lots of things cite patents (current and expired). I think of it as a "How it works" documentation.

Funny

All this patent stuff does amuse me. Apple have been so aggressive in throwing $h1t around re: patents in the last year or so, so its nice to see so much of it coming back to splat them squarely in the face. What goes around and all that.

Like Bill Ray I'm not sure exactly how this harms consumers, but it could be that a competing device was suppressed because the manufacturer felt that they would have violated a patent(s) that Apple were claiming, when those patent(s) had in fact expired. That would be kinda hard to prove - at least in a court - without protracted legal wranglings that may not be worth the hassle.

At the end of the day - only the lawyers will benefit, although I'm sure the US Gubb'ment wont turn down their promised 50% share of the booty.

Pint - all these rich lawyers can buy me a drink sometime - I can hope!

Naah.

False Labeling?!?!?

I'm guessing that Apple will simply argue that none of its products are "labeled" with any patents, if the claimed patents are only listed in the fine print in the printed manual. My iPods only mention trademarks and copyrights on their cases and nothing specific at that.